Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
On Dec 16, 2003, at 1:50 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote: This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the U.S. has done nothing questionable here? You don't feel that treating a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention? You feel this was the right thing to do? You would have no problem seing a U.S. or European leader being treated the same way? Who is the you referred to here? Please quote or refer to comments you (you) are responding to, especially when you ask questions. --Tim May
Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
-- On 16 Dec 2003 at 22:50, Nomen Nescio wrote: This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the U.S. has done nothing questionable here? You don't feel that treating a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention? I assume you are addressing me. If I had my druthers, I would hang him from a lamp post by one arm for the Iraqi populace to use as pinata. The geneva accords are an agreement between honorable warriors to treat each other honorably in war and victory, and a explanation of what constitutes honorable war fighting. I doubt too many heads of state qualify. I am quite sure Saddam does not. I don't know, but I have this feeling that just maybe this wasn't the most appropriate way to behave all things considered. This is a tense and volatile region as it is. I think we all should exercise caution Nothing like a bit of pinata thumping give youthful energy and high spirits a safe outlet. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CSjJWocwbOahKDLO63mBolSDS+4iUP3qS67zd4hs 41KsROdMjKp3F9n3uxJmghe632ARDSHhf9s9MR276
Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
On Tue, 2003-12-16 at 18:18, Jim Dixon wrote: I spent several years travelling in that part of the world. Well, that just blew your credibility with this crowd. You're supposed to spout off on topics about which you know nothing. Bonus points for reflexive anti-state-ism [1] [2], and in particular antiamericanism. And for idealistic crypto solutions to the world's problems, which unfortunately will never work in a world inhabited by real people. (Not that you're expected to admit that.) The sheltered children on this list need to get out into the nastier parts of the world. They need to see what life is like when the government is _really_ bad, not just some warts on a mostly benevolent institution. They also need to get a better feel for the cultural differences around the world -- even though we're all humans, what seems like a great idea in Berkeley might not fly in Baghdad or Beijing. [1] As contrasted with anti-statism. [2] Just let the market solve everything. And strong cryptography makes your place of residence irrelevant. Unless, of course, the police goon squad burst in and raped your children in front of you because you were trying to change your place of residence.
Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the U.S. has done nothing questionable here? You don't feel that treating a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention? You feel this was the right thing to do? You would have no problem seing a U.S. or European leader being treated the same way? I think we do have to take into consideration too that a lot of people (I'm not saying it's the majority or anything but still a lot of people) in some arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia do have some sympathy with Saddam. This has nothing to do with supporting his crimes like the chemical warfare but more general the fact that he was a leader in the region who stood up against U.S. and Israel. Also the Palestinians received a lot of finansial help from Saddam. I don't know, but I have this feeling that just maybe this wasn't the most appropriate way to behave all things considered. This is a tense and volatile region as it is. I think we all should exercise caution and careful considerations and try to not humiliate the pride of the people in this region. Remember that in many cases this is almost all they have left. Just my 2c.
Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote: This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the U.S. has done nothing questionable here? No one seems to question certain facts: * Saddam had hundreds of thousands of Iraqis tortured and killed * he used chemical weapons casually, wiping out at least one Kurdish village of several thousand people * he deliberately destroyed the swamp Arabs and the environment that they lived in * his regime treated POWs brutally; few people in Britain will forget the pilot who was badly beaten during the first Gulf War and then displayed on TV; few Americans will forget the wounded POWs interrogated on TV in the second The people on this list are less likely to remember that Saddam's coming to power was marked by the public humiliation and hanging of Americans unfortunate enough to be in Baghdad at the time. You don't feel that treating a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention? You mean, do I think that it is somehow immoral to have examined him for head lice and then checked his teeth? Well, no. Do I think that the Geneva convention is there to protect bandits, thugs, and tyrants? Well, no. If you read it, the focus is on protecting civilians and captured soldiers from the sort of abuse that Saddam considered normal. You feel this was the right thing to do? You would have no problem seing a U.S. or European leader being treated the same way? Hitler, you mean? Or did you have Milosevic in mind? You should try to remember how the US Civil War ended. The armed forces of the South surrendered. Lee handed his sword to Grant. I believe that Grant returned it - and allowed each Southern soldier to keep a rifle and a mule. Lee and the other leaders of the South lived out their lives in peace. There were of course acts of terror on both sides, but on the whole the combatants behaved decently. There was considerable mutual respect, because both sides recognized that the other had behaved honourably. The same cannot be said of Saddam Hussain. The people of the South did not walk in terror of Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis. The people of the North were not murdered, raped, and tortured by Grant and Lincoln. I think we do have to take into consideration too that a lot of people (I'm not saying it's the majority or anything but still a lot of people) in some arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia do have some sympathy with Saddam. This has nothing to do with supporting his crimes like the chemical warfare but more general the fact that he was a leader in the region who stood up against U.S. and Israel. Also the Palestinians received a lot of finansial help from Saddam. Yeah, you're right. I forgot that Saddam paid $25,000 or so to the family of each Palestinian 'soldier' who blew himself up, slaughtering innocent civilians in the sort of attack that the Geneva conventions were designed to prevent. The Palestinian suicide bombers wear no uniforms, they conceal their weapons, they deliberately target civilians. This has nothing to do with the justice for the Palestinians or whether the Israelis are right or wrong. The Geneva conventions, which you seem to be advocating, were established to set limits on the behaviour of combatants in war, to encourage the sort of peaceful resolution that marked the end of the American Civil War. What Saddam wanted was just the opposite. He advertised and paid for routine violations of the Geneva conventions in Israel. He wanted hatred and endless violence. I don't know, but I have this feeling that just maybe this wasn't the most appropriate way to behave all things considered. This is a tense and volatile region as it is. I think we all should exercise caution and careful considerations and try to not humiliate the pride of the people in this region. Remember that in many cases this is almost all they have left. The US plan appears to intend to stall until the Iraqis have regained sovereignty and then turn Saddam over to the new government, which will probably follow local practice and execute him. This will please tens of millions of Iraqis. The UK government, which has a long tradition of ignoring the wishes of the British people in regard to capital punishment, will tut-tut. The ex-governor of Texas will doubtless say again that he does not intend to express any personal opinions in the matter -- and smile. I spent several years travelling in that part of the world. From my experience, I think that the people of the region, who are rightfully proud of their heritage, of their traditions and beliefs, will respect the US and the UK more for having shown obviously superior strength, and for having
Re: U.S. in violaton of Geneva convention?
At 03:18 PM 12/16/2003, Jim Dixon wrote: You should try to remember how the US Civil War ended. The armed forces of the South surrendered. Lee handed his sword to Grant. I believe that Grant returned it - and allowed each Southern soldier to keep a rifle and a mule. Lee and the other leaders of the South lived out their lives in peace. There were of course acts of terror on both sides, but on the whole the combatants behaved decently. There was considerable mutual respect, because both sides recognized that the other had behaved honourably. The same cannot be said of Saddam Hussain. I have no idea what led to believe this. The North behaved so dishonorably during the war that it essentially rewrote the book on the rules of war for the rest of the world. Most academic historians, without legal training, have played down the war crimes issue, as if it has no bearing on those who win a war. It does. In the early seventeenth century, Hugo Grotius, a Dutch lawyer, came forth with The Law of War and Peace, which was translated into English in 1646. It immediately became the bible of the law of nations and found its way into the courts, libraries, and governments of Europe. Grotius soon became the father of modern international law. Grotius held that states, like people, are bound by a code of law, with duties and prohibitions that are universal, reasonable, and unchangeable. One nation, for example, may not attack another. After reviewing the practices of ancient nations, philosophers and legists, Grotius concluded that authorities generally assign to wars three justifiable causes: defence, recovery of property, and punishment. Grotius noted that the German barbarians of the north had a strong code and were the most just: they refrained from war unless attacked. The Roman lawyer Cicero would have been the father of ancient international law. In his De Republica (30.23) he set forth the principle that wars undertaken without reason are unjust wars. Except for the purpose of avenging or repulsing an enemy, no just war can be waged. By the nineteenth century, the concept of a just war became a part of the law of nations even though it had been an unwritten rule of society since the Middle Ages. Many of the tax rebellions in Europe, Spain, and England were resisting revenue demands of unjust wars, wars that were not for the defense of the realms. That same principle became part of the U.S. Constitution, which restricted tax expenditures for the common Defense. At West Point cadets were taught the principles of Grotius and international law under General Order no. 12, by none other than Lincoln's top commander, General Henry Halleck, who wrote the book. No general during the Civil War can claim ignorance of the laws of wars, especially the laws against the plunder and devastation of private property. Here is an excerpt from General Order no. 12, written by Halleck on the wanton plunder of private property: The inevitable consequences . . . are universal pillage and a total relaxation of discipline; the loss of private property, and the violation of individual rights . . . and the ordinary peaceful and noncombatants are converted into bitter and implacable enemies. The system is, therefore, regarded as both impolitic and unjust, and is coming into general disuse among the most civilized nations. But Halleck's book and teachings weren't the only condemnation of plunder of civilian property. On 24 April 1863, under Lincoln's signature, the army promulgated to its officers General Order no. 100, which came to be known as the Lieber Code and eventually received acclaim throughout the military in the Western world. Halleck was a close friend of its author, Professor Francis Lieber of Columbia University. A month after this order was given to the officers in the Union army, Professor Lieber wrote to the top commander, General Halleck I know by letters . . . that the wanton destruction of property by our men is alarming. It does incalculable injury. It demoralizes our troops, it annihilates wealth irrevocably and makes a return to a state of peace and peaceful minds more and more difficult. Your order [to the officers] . . . with reference to the Code, and pointing out the disastrous consequences of reckless devastation, in a manner that it might not furnish our reckless enemy with new arguments for his savagery. Halleck remained general in chief until Lincoln fired him in 1864 and appointed Grant as top commander. 1t was under Grant that the Lieber Code, now in the hands of all leading officers, was disregarded, and pillage and plunder became the general order of the final year of the war. Sherman and Sheridan could not possibly have undertaken their devastation of the South if they had followed this new military code on the laws of war. They also turned away from their education at West Point and the laws of war they had learned there under Halleck. Years after the war Sherman wrote a letter to a friend in
